Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

PERRY D. CAMINIS ET AL. v. AUSTIN TROY ET AL. (SC 18335)
Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued December 9, 2010--officially released March 1, 2011

Linda L. Morkan, with whom were John P. Casey and, on the brief, David Thomas Ryan, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Robert F. Maslan, Jr., with whom was Carolyn M. Colangelo, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion

EVELEIGH, J. This appeal arises from an action brought by the plaintiffs, Perry D. Caminis and Diane W. Caminis,1 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding portions of a floating dock and related pilings belonging to their neighbors, the defendants, Austin Troy and Dana Troy, which they claim encroach upon their littoral rights.2 The plaintiffs now appeal, following our grant of certification,3 from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court.4 See Caminis v. Troy, 112 Conn. App. 546, 963 A.2d 701 (2009). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the doctrine of laches barred the plaintiffs' request for an injunction, and also, as a matter of law, their request for a declaratory judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court on the alternative ground that the defendants successfully proved at trial that they adversely possessed the contested littoral area, and the plaintiffs' claims are barred because they were brought outside the fifteen year limitations period set forth in General Statutes

Download Caminis v. Troy.pdf

Connecticut Law